We will often hit slightly deeper than the deep cone due to catching the ball strong and aggressive, but that is the purpose of the margins of error built into the triangle. The 2 short cones mark an area that we generally seek to exceed form a gate if you will,

2) there is certainly benefit in target practice, but where the target should be depends very much on the opponent... some guys like to sit way back receiving deep balls, some others prefer hugging the baseline.... there is a live person standing on the other side.

Click to expand...

It is not going to matter how the opponent plays with these targets and they
are still where the ball should go when you don't have a better idea.
Hanging back, hugging BL, or rushing the net...these targets still give a nice
margin for error and allow you to cut loose more with of your power.

if you aim for deep targets, only balls hit on the sweet spot will land there... balls made contact anywhere else on the string bed will land short.

so to take a landing pattern chart of pro match and say ha - joker aims short, is wrong..... he aims deeper, but most balls land shorter

Click to expand...

I get your thinking here, but if it were that simple...they would never miss long.
Misses long was one of the biggest motivators in working this out.
I also think mis hits fly in many ways...not just short. Much different than
golf where most shots are max range for the club.

Either way, you seem to think the charts were used to locate the targets.
They were not. I designed the targets based on charting result based on how
points were ended and noticed some trends in the process. Some talented
posters came up with the diagrams and overlays you see in the thread.
I had been using my cones and hula hoops for a yr or two before even starting
that thread or using any of those diagrams.

Glad you enjoyed the read and realize the avoid zone you found is quite
similar! Pretty cool and we have all discussed how there is nothing ever
really new.
Hopefully you do see the the actual Smart Targets are quite different, and
seem to lack some of the most important aspect of my Smart Targets,
although I don't read German to be sure of any of this.

It seems like you suggest an "in between angle" which is longer than a short angle but shorter than a deep CC.

Click to expand...

yes, something like that...with some margin for error on the sides and more for
depth.
Simple on purpose for beginners, but has been well received by more experienced
players as well. All the Jrs talk about how different it is than what they have used before.
My oldest son who played and coached D1 loves my system.
With any luck, my 14 yr old will be good enough to test it on some bigger stages.
He is really doing some cool things at his current level and you can notice
quite a difference between him and his opponents as to how they work pts.
Kids coming off the court saying they have never worked so hard...win or
lose. Some even sort of tank due to the workload.

Either way, you seem to think the charts were used to locate the targets.
They were not. I designed the targets based on charting result based on how
points were ended and noticed some trends in the process. .

Click to expand...

One of the key pts here is my charting proved to me hitting very near the lines
was way overrated and likely caused way more misses for the hitter,
than pts won due to the proximity to the lines. Basically a sucker bet imo.

One of the key pts here is my charting proved to me hitting very near the lines
was way overrated and likely caused way more misses for the hitter,
than pts won due to the proximity to the lines. Basically a sucker bet imo.

Click to expand...

there is a big area between your 'smart targets' and 'very near the lines'...

if you get a good player with sound stroke, and just tell him to aim 3 ft inside both lines... (would be perfect to do this on clay).... let him hit for 5min, and look at the landing pattern... you will see it resembles the 'smart target' there...... the short balls are just a by product of contact on the bitter/dead spots.

the center of the landing pattern will not be that spot 3ft inside both lines, it will be well short of that.

it only makes sense, because long/wide balls immediately cost a point... short balls don't (at least not yet)

mishits, (not shanks), can only fly short... simple physics of how much rebound provided on the sweet spot vs. bitter spot.

they'd never miss long if they were not under the gun, on the run, off balance... a slight deviation of racket face angle can produce a long error.

if you train a student with cones.... player's brain will adjust.... if the eyes see majority balls missing the cones short, he will aim at the cone by NOT aiming at the cone

I bet if you take a good player with sound strokes, but who has never practiced cone hitting, the first 20 min he will miss the cone mostly on the shorter side.

Click to expand...

A shank is a form of mis-hit. Look, I know you are a smart guy, but try to be a
little less overbearing about what you think you know. I like addressing your
questions and points and think it leads to good info. Many times you are quite
right, but the way you state it...makes it so hard..... to stay polite.

Really does not matter why they miss long...important aspect is they DO.
That whole mis-hit thing is your deal. I don't care why they spray per this
convo. Maybe on another topic, it might matter.

As to cones... there use is common in tennis at all levels and many are quite
successful with their use. My students do well with the way we use them.
If you need some help with their implementation, I'm sure many on here can
make suggestions. It's not a problem for us, but I do target in many ways
besides cones.

there is a big area between your 'smart targets' and 'very near the lines'...

if you get a good player with sound stroke, and just tell him to aim 3 ft inside both lines... (would be perfect to do this on clay).... let him hit for 5min, and look at the landing pattern... you will see it resembles the 'smart target' there...... the short balls are just a by product of contact on the bitter/dead spots.

the center of the landing pattern will not be that spot 3ft inside both lines, it will be well short of that.

it only makes sense, because long/wide balls immediately cost a point... short balls don't (at least not yet)

Click to expand...

Actually I did nearly exactly this and the experience did not match your
expectations. This is part of what led to developing this target system.

I know it was a long thread, but you seemed to have missed some very
important parts to the system. The targets are a reference more than a target
to try and actually hit.

no need to stay polite - waste of energy while risking not getting the point across.

missing the sweet spot and shanks are not the same, 1 is still on the strings, 1 is on the frame... string bed is a plane facing the same direction.. the frame, well, not so much.

why they miss long DO matter, in the sense that how much of a miss is expected. do you expect a good player to miss a target by 5ft 11 inches so you ask him to aim 6ft short of the baseline? that's a significant loss of penetration..... or do you expect him to miss by only 2ft 11 inches and therefore aiming 3ft inside is safe and has more penetration.

missing the sweet spot and shanks are not the same, 1 is still on the strings, 1 is on the frame... string bed is a plane facing the same direction.. the frame, well, not so much.

Click to expand...

Good, I won't worry about it then.

Ok, understand that it may be subtle, but I didn't say they were the same,
I said a shank is a mis-hit, but no, they are not the same, as a mis-hit is
not always a shank. Clearly a shank is poorly struck...thus is MIS-HIt.
If you don't agree, that is fine. This is like Leonard explaining to Sheldon. lol

This target system has been extremely helpful for limiting the depth risk errors,
which was a big part of the WHY for it. Also if you learn to apply this system
correctly, you will learn how the hitting short within this system is not the risk
that many think.

good - you will notice that fingers flying much faster on the keyboard without that politeness thing getting in the way.

couple of thoughts -

1) perhaps, you are in the same trap as the mid ct ball theory, in the sense that the benefit of your target system is in the 'targeting', not the 'target'... i.e. player becomes more aware of a specific spot to shoot for, better concentration, better execution, (some golf teacher ask student to aim for a specific leaf on a tree 200 yards away..... same idea)......but there is no intrinsic benefit of where that target is, which leads to my 2nd thought..

2) limiting depth risk, at what cost......... aiming 6ft-9ft short of the baseline sure will give up lots of short balls waiting to be pounded.... you say well, joker lands his balls there.... I am saying, yeah he lands them there, but he is not aiming there.

2) limiting depth risk, at what cost......... aiming 6ft-9ft short of the baseline sure will give up lots of short balls waiting to be pounded.... you say well, joker lands his balls there.... I am saying, yeah he lands them there, but he is not aiming there.

Click to expand...

just like for DJ, there is no cost. Depth is not what you have been told.
Key in higher levels is the line of shot or vector, along with control of pace,
with some exceptions of course like drops shots. Rally shots and mid ct
attacks are about the shot line with good pace for the level of play.

tomorrow I can come up with a 'target smart' system and I am sure it will bring huge benefit too (seriously), but where is the cause-effect relationship?

Click to expand...

Good luck with your system! I hope it is great and you share it as I have. If it
is better than mine, I benefit from a better system...it's all good

On the other hand, I think it is clear from your questions and comments that
your experience is shallow, you seem young, and you won't even share how long you have been
playing, so you may need some seasoning I expect.
Either way, best to you.

simple - that 'no land area' is common knowledge... just 4-5 cones outlining the 'no landing area', you let players rally, you lose point if ball goes in there..

stop putting yourself on the seniority high ground, i have played for 30 years... and it's irrelevant anyway... are you gonna ask a doctor not to treat you for cancer, unless he himself has had cancer?

experience is one thing, logical thinking is another.... the 2 things are independent of each other... very few people have both.

'seems inexperienced'... you are being polite again... no, I don't coach for a living, so in that sense I am inexperienced..

but logical thinking is an independent quality.

Click to expand...

It is illogical to think that having cancer would make a doctor a better with
treating cancer, as compared to say...a far more experienced Doc who had successfully
treated many patients with cancer.
Imo it is illogical to think that merely having had cancer alone would make a doc
better. That doc likely trusted a experienced cancer doc to treat him and likely
would be a completely different type of doc, since that is only one of many kinds
of Doc. He also likely had a different cancer since there are so many
types and likely each of them had only one type.
But those ARE good examples of the things like we see in your stat analysis
on serving. Major unsound assumptions..illogical conclusions.

The dimension of space is accounted for in this thread but time isn't so much. A holistic scheme is the holy grail i guess, but that mystery is the reason for why the game is so fun

Click to expand...

A good point raised, but not entirely true. The thread discusses how to use
the targets to hit smartly away from the foe for most instances. While this
is not intended to tell you where and how to hit on the rise vs on the drop, it
does address how direction shot line, with good solid pace will give you more
time and challenge the foe. It also addresses coming in to attack mid ct balls,
which also deals with managing time.

^^^Even on the possible examples you have posted above, I don't see it as an acceptable risk for all but the most elite players (and then against weak opposition) and the data I have collected of shot mapping shows that whilst shots may bounce inside 2 feet from the lines at pro level, the general pattern indicates that the target area was much safer in intent.

cheers

Click to expand...

I agree Ash, but serves are tough to target more than a foot off the line don't
you think...1st serves?

^^^Sorry, do you mean when serving on when receiving? If you're referring to when serving I encourage players to target where they want the opponent to make contact as opposed to a specific spot in the box.

^^^Sorry, do you mean when serving on when receiving? If you're referring to when serving I encourage players to target where they want the opponent to make contact as opposed to a specific spot in the box.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Yes, I was talking of when serving and how that normally ends up quite near
a line on 1st serve. I wish I could find a way around it to help to avoid bad calls,
but seems like there is little that can be done.

^^^Oh, I see. Yeah you're probably right, I wonder if that's because people consciously think about hitting to the lines rather than thinking of the path of the ball to where they want the opponent to hit.

^^^Oh, I see. Yeah you're probably right, I wonder if that's because people consciously think about hitting to the lines rather than thinking of the path of the ball to where they want the opponent to hit.

Click to expand...

I do think I tend to focus on the line or path of my serves, just like on other strokes, but
never really realized that consciously as a serving cue I don't think.
thanks

^^^Oh, I see. Yeah you're probably right, I wonder if that's because people consciously think about hitting to the lines rather than thinking of the path of the ball to where they want the opponent to hit.

Click to expand...

In thinking more about this and using it in serving practice. I realized how much
I focus on the path of serve, much like with groundstrokes.
I also focus on clearing the net in a way that supports bringing the ball down
quickly in most cases...again like with groundstrokes.
For example, I tend to use a top slice most often, which blends pace, slice, and
topspin aspect to get the ball coming down faster.
On flatter serves, I tend to try and hit much closer to the net top; which
is another perspective on getting it down soon.
Ash, Thanks for the tip on seeing this very similar to how I do the other strokes.

I find that deeper serves have more cred in the club game, probably because weak serves often land short. Shorter angled serves can be more effective, but deeper ones cause a higher bounce and look more professional.

I am also surprised by how many of the deep serves land very close inside the line, and I am not being misled by ignoring the faults. It seems to be a miracle which defeats the laws of probability. I think it is due to subtle feedback obtained over the years that somehow gets it right. Yet it seems that for every serve which lands 2 inches inside, there should be one which lands 2 inches outside, but that does not happen.

I hope you guys realize that all this really shows is that most shots are cross-court rally balls.

Click to expand...

While I agree that most rally balls are cross court as they should be (few argue
this I expect), this chart does not distinguish that they are rally balls or whether
they are cross court. Just shows where balls were bouncing during a match.
Many of these are mid ct attacks and/or dtl shots.

I expect most can see what it does show is how few balls land very close to the
baseline along with how they tend to keep the bounce away from the center T.
And no, this is not to be an earth shattering find, but just a simple way to share
what many experienced good players know on one level or another.

I hope you guys realize that all this really shows is that most shots are cross-court rally balls.

Click to expand...

Does it? How do you know where the ball came from? Can you tell which one was a DTL and which one was a CC?

I agree with your conclusion though, but I think what matters are the winners. Many of them are DTL, despite the old advice of it being low %tage etc. The trademark backhand winners of Djokovic and many of the 1 handers like Haas, Fed, Blake etc are DTL shots.

but I think what matters are the winners. Many of them are DTL, despite the old advice of it being low %tage etc. The trademark backhand winners of Djokovic and many of the 1 handers like Haas, Fed, Blake etc are DTL shots.

Click to expand...

Couple of questions-

What do you mean by winners are what matters?
Matters where winners bounce? or
If they are dtl? or
How many winners a player can hit?

I don't think most winners are dtl or Bhs. Most winners seem to be Fhs I/O or
crosscourt imo & more dependent on the aspect of being a mid ct attack than where
they are directed. Also, Imo winners are not what really matter, as they tend to
be rare overall when you factor out the serve and often more by chance than
design unless the court was just forced wide open.
I also think most Bh winners tend to be slight I/O shots from more near the
ct center than dtl.

I do agree it is VERY important how to target winner opportunities, so if that
is what you mean, then yes....
As for what matters most; Imo it is the aggressive rally shots and 2ond serves, around
which, a good players game tends to revolve.

Most winners are not necessarily BHs. I mentioned DTL BHs as an example. There are many DTL forehand winners also.

The DTL winners seem to be disproportionate to the negative advice given about them. I think in these days of powerful frames and spin, the arguments of greater net height and shorter available distance are not that important.

Lots of winners are also angled cross court shots.

Apart from the balls being DTL or CC, a large number of winners/forcing shots are inside-outs, which can be called CC also, but generally they are not.

The DTL winners seem to be disproportionate to the negative advice given about them. I think in these days of powerful frames and spin, the arguments of greater net height and shorter available distance are not that important.

Lots of winners are also angled cross court shots.

Apart from the balls being DTL or CC, a large number of winners/forcing shots are inside-outs, which can be called CC also, but generally they are not.

Click to expand...

Imo you are right that dtl is often a strong choice when going for a winner, but
the confusion may be that players should be going for winners on mid ct, and
short balls which often are dtl,
and the negative advice of not hitting dtl is based on rally shots.
Rally shots normally are used for around the BL, and are not advisable to intend winners.
So it seems you are taking the advice of minimizing dtl for rally shots, and
applying it to mid ct attacks... but that IS where you often will go dtl...Shorter balls
showing the normal advice is accurate when used in the proper context of a BL rally.

I see the pros put away short balls all over the place - CC, DTl, IO, or short angled, depending on where the opponent is (not).

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, most mid ct and short balls get put away in a variety of ways,
which is basically what I was saying.

The reason I separate mid FROM short balls into 2 categories is just an instructional
point. By short ball, I'm referring to real short, but with mid ct, they can
be a bit deeper, with the hitter attacking from on or barely inside the baseline.
It helps to separate this to realize it's not a rally ball or a real short sitter.

I find mid ct, deeper rips actually works real well, even better at times for the big hitters,
as the court is too short often when they go with big power on a
shorter sitter. There is a range that fits most of the big hitting jrs and it helps
them to get more familiar with that, along with knowing how to work with it.
They have to be more aware on the shorter ones that they can't use full pace and
may use more spin and angle instead.

"demonstrated the superiority of the relatively flat, well-angled ball to the egg-shaped topspin shot, hit with a safe margin of error depth if not width-wise. "

I would think angling it close to the sideline is as risky as hitting it close to the baseline?

Click to expand...

Nice find. This illustrates exactly what I saying earlier in this thread. DTL backhand at the 4.0-4.5 level is a devastating shot. I spend a lot of time practicing that shot and I firmly believe it takes your game up a half level once you can hit it when needed.

Furthermore, Djoker hits deep, flatter and with more precise angle while still utilizing heavy spin. That is why he is beating all the "play it safe" topspin loopers in todays game.

Furthermore, Djoker hits deep, flatter and with more precise angle while still utilizing heavy spin. That is why he is beating all the "play it safe" topspin loopers in todays game.

Click to expand...

You had it right in the first paragraph of your post.

Actually, the real reason why Djokovic is having so much success is because of his backhand. There are many deep, flat, heavy hitters in the game -- not just Djokovic. They do not enjoy the same success that he has. Some of those have better serves than Djokovic.

The big difference is the backhand. Djokovic has the best backhand in the game right now. Not only can he drill it cross-court, he also can go down the line and change directions with ease. This is something the game hasn't seen since peak Federer and peak Agassi.